Group C: What is the argument and methodology of these two articles? What counts as evidence for these authors? How do we fit "empathy" into our pantheon of terms (trance, theatricality, enchantment, transport, alienation, stuplime, etc.)?
Group A: The sublime and the stuplime assume a particular subjectivity, a particular receptive agent. For Kant, the reasoning agent, at a careful remove from the infinite, transcends the vastness through a recognition of it. Ngai describes a subject opened up, through boredom and shock, to "an indeterminate affective state that lacks the punctuating 'point' of an individuated emotion" (284). Do these essays on dance challenge or complicate either of the imagined subjectivities or perceiving agents imagined by Ngai or Kant?
Group D: What do we do with dance? How should it be included in discourse around performance, reception, etc? How does it frustrate our critical aims and how might it usefully enrich our thinking on performance?
No comments:
Post a Comment